Does Neil Rickert Even Know what Science Entails?
-
Neil Rickert, one of my dickheaded detractors said the following:
And when compared to materialism, again ID comes out on top as materialism is nothing but sheer dumb luck. So one has to wonder how Neil is defining science and why he thinks ID doesn't qualify.
He won't say.
Neil Rickert, one of my dickheaded detractors said the following:
Personally, I have no objections at all to “Intelligent Design” as a philosophical idea. But the problem with ID, is that the ID proponents insist that it is science. My main objections to ID, are to the claim that it is science.Well Neil, compared to evolutionism, when is considered to be science, ID is far superior. As opposed to evolutionism ID makes testable claims. For example IC can be tested. The claim that natural selection, drift and neutral construction can produce IC is not testable.
And when compared to materialism, again ID comes out on top as materialism is nothing but sheer dumb luck. So one has to wonder how Neil is defining science and why he thinks ID doesn't qualify.
He won't say.
posted by Joe G @ 10:16 AM
6 Comments:
At 12:51 PM,
William Spearshake said…
"For example IC can be tested."
Nice strawman. It is not irreducible complexity that is being questioned.
Random mutation and natural selection have been shown on numerous occasions to result in antibiotic resistance. Those new functions, in the presence of antibiotics, are irreducible complex.
At 1:22 PM,
Joe G said…
It isn't a strawman. And many people do question IC- Jerad does, for one (he commented here)
Also IC is pertains to degrees. For example even Behe's mousetrap has 5 components. The fewer the components the easier it is for chance and necessity to produce. Both Behe and Dembski cover that.
Random mutation and natural selection have been shown on numerous occasions to result in antibiotic resistance.
Question-begging. And even loss of function can produce antibiotic resistance.
Those new functions, in the presence of antibiotics, are irreducible complex.
More question-begging.
At 5:10 PM,
Mark Wade said…
What testable claims does ID make?
At 5:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Irreducible complexity can be tested. That the genetic code is a real code can be tested.
At 10:28 PM,
Mark Wade said…
@Joe G
What is a test for IC?
What is the expected result if IC is true?
What is the expected result if IC is not true?
At 11:31 PM,
Joe G said…
Exactly what Behe and Dembski have said. I have posted enough about it- search on IC and read
Post a Comment
<< Home